Responding to a question on notice to the standing committee on economics, ASIC confirmed that having observed increased discussion about finance and investment on social media sites, the regulator is undertaking a review of selected financial influencers.
It is also engaging with social media platforms and their moderators to ascertain whether the regulator’s RG 162 Internet Discussion Sites requires updating.
“Our selection of finfluencers is not targeted specifically at TikTok, although it is being included in the review, as we note that some of the finfluencers have a presence on TikTok,” ASIC said.
According to the regulator’s research to date, the number of online finfluencers across platforms such as Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok is clearly growing.
“Increased levels of retail investor participation and interest in investment is to be encouraged, but we want this to occur in an informed, safe and sustainable way. This contributes to market integrity and confidence for all investors,” the corporate regulator said.
It expressed particular concern for younger and first-time investors who are accessing information from online finfluencers, some of whom are being paid to propagate particular agendas.
“As most finfluencers do not hold an AFS licence, they are not subject to the requirements that apply to licenses, including having adequate arrangements to manage conflicts of interest or to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly,” ASIC said.
“We are concerned that inexperienced investors may be increasingly acting on financial advice from unlicensed providers. This may result in conflicted or poor advice being provided to users who may suffer financial loss.”
But ASIC is not only targeting finfluencers for want of a better understanding of this new advice niche, and is said to be engaging in consultations with AFS licensees who are paying these individuals to promote their products.
This, however, is not the first time ASIC has spoken about the proliferation of amateur investment advice on social media. In fact, judging by previous remarks, it appears the regulator has been fairly slow in ascertaining its responsibilities when it comes to this new form of advice.
In a statement released in November 2020, ASIC noted: “Since March 2020, ASIC has seen a significant escalation in complaints about unlicensed conduct, including complaints about unlicensed financial advice being provided through websites, social media, cold-calling and seminars.
“ASIC is concerned because consumers unknowingly receiving unlicensed advice do not have the same protections afforded to them under the law when they receive advice from licensed providers.”
But ASIC’s apparent lack of urgency is not too surprising given the government’s own financial services minister Jane Hume had previously played down the potential of social media influencers to dispense financial advice.
“The TikTok influencer spruiking Nokia is not that different to the bloke down at the pub who wants to tell you all about the really great company he just invested in — but with a much louder voice,” she said.
“This isn’t financial advice, but as has been the case since taxi drivers started giving stock tips, it is an inevitable part of a financial ecosystem.”
Ms Hume’s comments don’t sit well with experts.
A senior lecturer in finance at the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University, Dr Angel Zhong, told ifa’s sister brand, nestegg, that “the bloke at the pub does not make profits from telling you about the great company he just invested in”.
“On the contrary, social media influencers generate income based on the views of their contents. As such, their motives are different,” Dr Zhong said at the time.
To Dr Zhong, there’s no grey area. Through platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and ASXbets, finance influencers are providing unmoderated investment advice without a licence.




The only people looking at social media for advice are those who could never afford real advice anyway thanks to the Governments woeful reforms that have tripled the cost of seeking advice. Same with barefoot. None of these fin-fluencers are stealing my prospective clients so let them have at it.
Any discussion of financial matters in a public forum has become an impossible hot mess to navigate. In medicine, we have influences who speak freely and are not doctors, in law anyone can provide a public opinion be it informed or otherwise. The same goes for tax with “news stories” devoid of general advice warnings. When will government realise that they have tied the financial services industry up in knots and their legislative house of cards is collapsing around them (and us). Given it’s the second largest contributor to GDP in Australia you would think they would be more careful about killing their golden goose.
Government and careful in the same sentence…only if covering up another parliamentary scandal.
If you go after these finfluencers, the tech giants will get involved too, implicitly. My guess is nothing will eventuate. Too hard.
I hope my ASIC Levy isn’t paying for the regulator’s half-hearted FinFluencer research with no sense of urgency. After all, this investigation does not involved the supervision of licensed, law-abiding financial advisers.
I think we know the answer to this headline – “to understand how the financial services law applies to their activity” – at the moment it does not apply at all. Much like Barefoot.
All in the “too hard” basket – especially when you can wade into the financial adviser industry and bludgeon them out of existence. That way the Industry Super Network will be left with free rein.
Well done Jane Hume…obviously all over issues ….NOT.
Waste of space.